IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-60639

Summary Calendar

JOSE DAVID CHAVEZ-CRUZ, also known as Sam David Chavez Cruz,

Petitioner

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A094 299 717

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose David Chavez-Cruz, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions this 

court to review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision dismissing 

his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order denying his applications for 

withholding of removal and for protection under the Convention Against 

Torture (CAT). Chavez-Cruz has not challenged on appeal the BIA’s decision 

not to review his unexhausted claims that he is entitled to withholding of 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 29, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-60639 Document: 00515097150 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/29/2019
No. 18-60639

2

removal because he was persecuted based on his father’s nationality and his

own political opinion. Thus, he abandoned any argument that he exhausted 

those claims, and this court lacks jurisdiction to review the unexhausted 

claims. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003); Wang v. 

Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir. 2001). 

This court reviews the decision of the BIA and will consider the IJ’s 

decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 

861, 863 (5th Cir. 2009). “Questions of law are reviewed de novo,” and 

“[f]actual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence, which requires only 

that the BIA’s decisions be supported by record evidence and be substantially 

reasonable.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Under the 

substantial evidence standard, the court may reverse the ruling only if “the 

evidence compels it.” Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

The substantial evidence in the record supports the BIA’s determination 

that Chavez was not prejudiced by the use of the English language during the 

immigration proceedings and, therefore, Chavez was not deprived of due 

process. See Anwar v. INS, 116 F.3d 140, 144 (5th Cir. 1997). The record also 

supports the BIA’s determination that Chavez failed to make the showing 

required by Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), that is required 

to establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. 

Additionally, the substantial evidence in the record and our precedent 

support the finding by the BIA that the IJ did not clearly err in determining 

that Chavez failed to demonstrate that a group made up of persons that oppose 

gang membership are members of a particular social group entitled to 

protection under the immigration laws. See Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 

F.3d 511, 521-22 (5th Cir. 2012); Garcia v. Holder, 756 F.3d 885, 890 (5th Cir. 

 Case: 18-60639 Document: 00515097150 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/29/2019
No. 18-60639

3

2014). Further, the substantial evidence in the record supports the BIA’s 

determination that the IJ did not clearly err in finding that Chavez failed to 

demonstrate that it was more likely than not that he will be tortured by an act 

of the Honduran government or with its acquiescence if he returns to 

Honduras. See Garcia, 756 F.3d at 891. 

A determination whether Chavez failed to show that he could not safely 

relocate to another area of Honduras is not necessary to determine the 

disposition of this appeal and, thus, the issue will not be addressed. See INS 

v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976). The petition for review is DENIED.

 Case: 18-60639 Document: 00515097150 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/29/2019